politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeb Bush, 6/4 favourite for the GOP nomination, slips to 7

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.

In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.

In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.

David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll

Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.

But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.

In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.

In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.

David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll

Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.

But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.

Er no. The unionists are in government with Sinn Féin. They do deals with whomever will deliver the goodies.

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

EDIT: http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-

Dair said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.

In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.

In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.

David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll

Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.

But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.

Here are Labour's 100 top target seats for 2020.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/united_kingdom/targets/lab

Their first "low hanging fruit" is 26th on the list with an SNP majority of 3,718 to overturn despite them pretty much maximising any tactical voting.

Their next "low hanging fruit" is 45th with an SNP majority of 5,597 and is due heavy Boundary Changes which will only help the SNP gain a higher notional majority.

In fact Labour only have 9 SNP seats in their top 100 targets and they are clustered at the upper end of the 100 with majorities well beyond anything Labour can expect to turn around.

And in every single one of these seats, the SNP will have the "first defence incumbence" advantage.

The_Apocalypse said:

Pauly said:

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

How many of those areas have a Labour council?

So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.

Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.

The_Apocalypse said:

HYUFD said:

The_Apocalypse said:

HYUFD said:

The_Apocalypse said:

HYUFD said:

Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.

In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.

In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

I doubt he'll be able to do it, but getting Scotland back may make a Corbyn leadership less damaging for Labour. None of the candidates can win back England, not a single one.

Scotland would be the only net plus of a Corbyn leadership for Labour. As for England, I would not rule out Burnham and Kendall pipping Osborne there in the right circumstances, though not Cameron if he stands again and probably not Johnson

On Cameron, I saw that Telegraph story - just seems to be the hopes of MPs that he'll stand again, as opposed to any real inside information as to what Cameron is thinking. Was interesting to read that several Tories are worried about Osborne's electability, though.

I don't think Osborne can get a majority, nor do I think he'd make a good PM - but most likely, he could preside over a minority Tory government. And then pretty much become unpopular from there.

We shall see, and if Corbyn wins whether he lasts the course or is IDS 2

Do you think Corbyn will last?

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

EDIT: http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-

Northern Europe, like the UK, is a very wealthy part of the world.

The_Apocalypse said:

Pauly said:

How many of those areas have a Labour council?

So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.

Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Pauly said:

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

How many of those areas have a Labour council?

So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.

Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.

Or it could just be duff statistics.

Life_ina_market_town said:

The_Apocalypse said:

So inequalitybriefing are wrong, then?

Yes. They are correct only if you define "northern Europe" as excluding several EU member states further north than those in their sample. The sample is entirely artificial. France is apparently a member of "northern Europe", but Poland and the Baltic States aren't.

Plato said:

In all seriousness, I've been pondering JC's baggage and trying to see how he won't be annihilated.

One can be all starry-eyed about his Magic People's QE Bank - but the rest of it? His list of dubious friends alone provides acres of opportunity.

And that's before the newspapers start digging in a serious way.

watford30 said:

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.

In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.

In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.

David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll

Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.

But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.

Er no. The unionists are in government with Sinn Féin. They do deals with whomever will deliver the goodies.

The Unionists will never do deals with a party led by a man who treats the IRA as equivalent to the British Army.

David_Evershed said:

Dair said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.

In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.

In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf

Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.

David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll

Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.

But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.

Here are Labour's 100 top target seats for 2020.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/united_kingdom/targets/lab

Their first "low hanging fruit" is 26th on the list with an SNP majority of 3,718 to overturn despite them pretty much maximising any tactical voting.

Their next "low hanging fruit" is 45th with an SNP majority of 5,597 and is due heavy Boundary Changes which will only help the SNP gain a higher notional majority.

In fact Labour only have 9 SNP seats in their top 100 targets and they are clustered at the upper end of the 100 with majorities well beyond anything Labour can expect to turn around.

And in every single one of these seats, the SNP will have the "first defence incumbence" advantage.

The SNP have the advantage that none of the candidates for Labour leader are Scottish. The English have voted in numbers for Scottish Labour and Lib Dem leaders but I don't see Scots voting for an English leader.

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

EDIT: http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-

William_H said:

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

EDIT: http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-

The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx

The_Apocalypse said:

Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.

Sean_F said:

William_H said:

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.

Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

EDIT: http://inequalitybriefing.org/brief/briefing-43-the-poorest-regions-of-the-uk-are-the-poorest-in-northern-

The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx

But, excluding Eastern Germany.

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Alanbrooke said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Pauly said:

The_Apocalypse said:

matt said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).

That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".

FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.

I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systeou have to question that argument.

Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.

I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.

http://4bitnews.com/uk/9-out-of-10-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-are-in-britain/

How many of those areas have a Labour council?

So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.

Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.

Or it could just be duff statistics.

Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.

It depends what's in them.

having done a fair bit of travel round Europe I doubt Ireland's border counties are any better off than NI, regions of France like the Limousin or Marseilles are complete shitholes.

I suspect the Euro at 1.10 in 2014 and 1.42 today may be relevant. Likewise comparing Cornwall pop 500 k with London pop 9 milliondoesn't tell us much. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in London.

bigjohnowls said:

I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable
Simon Danczuk MP

I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable

Sean_F said:

Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.

NickPalmer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I'm trying to think of genuine Corbynistas [those who believe in him/his views] on here - bar @bigjohnowls I'm struggling.

Who have I missed?

AndyJS said:

A taste of the next election if Corbyn is elected leader:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/07/the-exit-poll-is-great-news-for-the-tories/

I know @tyson and @SandyRentool are supporting Corbyn, but I don't think they necessarily think like Corbyn.

I'm probably going to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I don't see him as intolerant of dissent, and I'd rather have an appealing vision with issues that one can argue about than no particular vision at all.

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

William_H said:

The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx

So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.

Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".

Dair said:

Alanbrooke said:

Dair said:

Sean_F said:

Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.

Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.

LOL

you can say the same about Glasgow.

No, actually.

You cannot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

William_H said:

The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx

So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.

Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".

French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: ​[ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.

From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.

David_Evershed said:

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Plato said:

I'm trying to think of genuine Corbynistas [those who believe in him/his views] on here - bar @bigjohnowls I'm struggling.

Who have I missed?

AndyJS said:

A taste of the next election if Corbyn is elected leader:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/07/the-exit-poll-is-great-news-for-the-tories/

I know @tyson and @SandyRentool are supporting Corbyn, but I don't think they necessarily think like Corbyn.

I'm probably going to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I don't see him as intolerant of dissent, and I'd rather have an appealing vision with issues that one can argue about than no particular vision at all.

Quick question: do you think a Corbyn-led Labour could get an appealing vision across to swing voters? Many in the media won't give him much of a hearing and there's a lot of history that could continually be brought up.

Are the right wing media keeping quiet about the dirt on Corbyn so that he wins - or does the right wing media not have any dirt on Corbyn?

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.

According to the inequalitybriefing link, the Eurostat data takes in account the different prices in different regions.

Danny565 said:

bigjohnowls said:

I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable
Simon Danczuk MP

I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable

I see he's another one who's suddenly discovered he's against non-members signing up to vote. Funny how he wasn't against it before the contest when the assumption was it would favour centrist candidates.

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

William_H said:

The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx

So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.

Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".

French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: ​[ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.

From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.

Danny565 said:

bigjohnowls said:

I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable
Simon Danczuk MP

I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable

I see he's another one who's suddenly discovered he's against non-members signing up to vote. Funny how he wasn't against it before the contest when the assumption was it would favour centrist candidates.

corporeal said:

Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.

So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.

Artist said:

I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.

The_Apocalypse said:

corporeal said:

Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.

So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.

So within the EU, but not actually geographically a part of Europe - which is what inequalitybriefing seem to be referring to - although their use of EU only countries didn't help.

On the definition of Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Definition within the link there's a map of Europe, which again doesn't appear to include Guiania.

And: Europe is now generally defined by geographers as the western peninsula of Eurasia, with its boundaries marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the far east are usually taken to be the Urals, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea; to the southeast, including the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.

corporeal said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Dair said:

The_Apocalypse said:

William_H said:

The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx

So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.

Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".

French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: ​[ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.

From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.

Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.

So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.

Disraeli said:

If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel?
They are being lured here on a false prospectus.

The_Apocalypse said:

300,000 French residents in London? They must all be in the very wealthy parts of London.

kle4 said:

Danny565 said:

Artist said:

I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.

The whole point of the system was to do precisely that, and it was the Blairites who wanted it the most because they thought it would favour them. Here's Alan Milburn saying how they should sign up non-members and make it more like "a US Primary" - from 9:30:

htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjW071EtRk

Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.

Undoubtedly they are unhappy that the non-Corbyn candidates have not excited the outsiders as much as Corbyn has, but they didn't get all the rules they wanted (or at least some of them) - the rules would have prevented Corbyn from being presented to members in the first place, it's just people didn't adhere to the spirit of those rules. Serves them right really.

kle4 said:

Danny565 said:

Artist said:

I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.

The whole point of the system was to do precisely that, and it was the Blairites who wanted it the most because they thought it would favour them. Here's Alan Milburn saying how they should sign up non-members and make it more like "a US Primary" - from 9:30:

htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjW071EtRk

Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.

Undoubtedly they are unhappy that the non-Corbyn candidates have not excited the outsiders as much as Corbyn has, but they didn't get all the rules they wanted (or at least some of them) - the rules would have prevented Corbyn from being presented to members in the first place, it's just people didn't adhere to the spirit of those rules. Serves them right really.

foxinsoxuk said:

Tim_B said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Disraeli said:

If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel?
They are being lured here on a false prospectus.

Because even poor regions of the UK are better than Sudan and Eritrea.

The weather's better in Sudan and Eritrea though..

No its not! Eritrea is scorchingly hot in the summer, as is most of Sudan.

MarkHopkins said:

Tim_B said:

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell -

read the book first or watch the TV show first?

Go do something interesting instead.

antifrank said:

Tim_B said:

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell -

read the book first or watch the TV show first?

The book is pretty decent. I didn't watch the TV show though so I can't help you pick.